The Secretary vs M/S.Sri.B.Maharudragouda on 12 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF' JANUAR_*19--.2O:iéi"Tj"'   A-

PREsENTA__
THE I~ION'BLE MR.JUSTICVE'-., K.:L.E}/fANL»IUNI3LTI?iI:'=--._ 
AND  M 1  I .  
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVJND _Ee:UMA1€
WRIT APPEAL No.:f>33'1./'20A09{AI5NlC} 

BETWEEN:

THE SECRETARY  "

APMC; 'BELIARY rj;1'sT'R1,cT

BELLARY__    
 j ' _     ...APPELLANT

(By Sri. M_ALL1KARJwU'N_ BASAREDDY, ADV.

AND: 'V _

I   "W3.SR1.E.MAiéARUDRAGoUDA

* ~ _, V Ex; 'iT'S_PA.RTNER,
 SR'I=..B".MAHARUDRAGOUDA,
-A "1.T'AGE:3---.AEoUT 49 YEARS,
 S/.0 BQDODDANAGOUDA

 2. SE13-GURULINGANAGOUDA TRADING

"  COMPANY, BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
 ZSRI GURULINGANAGOUDA
" AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S /0 SR1 NARAYANA RADDI

/I



!\J

3. ABDUL MAZEED SAB AND SONS,
BY ITS PARTNER SR1 NOOR AI-IAMAD
AGED 45 YEARS S/O ABEEB AI-EAMED

4. SRI VASAVI AGENCIES, BY ITS PRoI=>RIEToR_._~{f_.._A _
SRI.B.K.GOPINATH,  T- '

AGE 44 YEARS,

S/O LATE SRI SK. KRISHNA MURTH1   A A

5. SR1 D.V.MADHAVAYYA AND 1-;':oMI»ANY -:' . ' A
BY ITS PARTNER SRI D.KRISI:INAYYA 
AGED 55 YEARS, I  
S/O SRI.D.v.MADHAvAYY_A

5. SRI MANJUNATH AND (:0 " PANY
BY ITS PARTNER;v.. . * 
SRI.A.KALYANAGQU;DA,-_  ~, "
AGE 49 YEARS   
S/O SRI.A.I3ASANA.GQUDA  ' "

7. vISHwATRADI~NG CGMEARY
BY ITS PROPRIETO _ *   ----
SRI.M.P.SHANTI-I '1\[EAI\1;JIJNA'I"I~JY~"
AGED 38 YEARS, " _ .  
W/O M.P.MANJUNAT1-I 

8.; "THE'DI:RE'QT'OR  """ 
 AGR.I_CUL'I'URE'PRODUCE
"MARKET 'GQM1IIIT:EE,
RA.J"EI%IA'NxiAN ROAD, BANGALORE
I '   ...RESPoNDENTS

 xWRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH

CGURT ACT, PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

; 'iI3Y_TRE. LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS. 62588~«

ff«_594'/'A2UQ9'- DTI). 21 /4/O9 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
' A~P_PEAL.; -

(A/"A



L.-J

THiS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: --

JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed for orders, we.«.ha_ve_.’h’ear:i

the Counsel for the appellant.

2. The appe11ant~APMC is qiiiestioriivhgp the’

correctness of the order passed by the~1earned.’t.LSii1*1gie

in Writ petition No.62211«212″/~2?()iO9. Du_r:i’r1g”V–thev;4coi1rse of A

arguments, it is brought to our notiCVee’–that the order of the

learned Single Judge by the Division

Benchviviiofv ‘this, appeal No.6243/2009 dated
12.11.2099. judgment passed in writ appeal

No.6:243/2509} we..’~ha’vet”o dismiss this appeal.

‘A Aeieorrdingly, this appeal is dismissed.

gab/

sat
EQQGE

sa/~
EUDGE